Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/2011

Home

August 25, 2010 1 Volume 41 No. 16 Zoning Bulletin drew the proposed shed on the survey, depicting the shed as avoiding a 30 -foot setback area. Also, the city ultimately approved the build- ing permit for the shed. Sarpal constructed the shed. However, because the house was not built as proposed on the survey, the shed ultimately encroached onto the setback approximately 15 feet. In September 2007, the city sent a letter to Sarpal, explaining the encroachment and requesting that he move the shed. Sarpal instead applied for a variance, which was denied. Sarpal did not move the shed. In April 2008, the city brought a petition for injunctive relief, ask- ing the court to order Sarpal to relocate the shed. Sarpal argued that the city should be estopped from enforcing the zoning ordinance setback requirement against him. He argued this equitable estoppel should be applied so as to prevent an injustice. The district court agreed with, and ruled in favor of, Sarpal. The city appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The Court of Appeals of Minnesota held that equitable estoppel should apply, prohibiting the city from enforcing the zoning ordi- nance setbacks against Sarpal. Sarpal did not have to move the shed. In so holding, the court explained that "[e]stoppel is available as a defense against the government if the government's wrongful con- duct threatens to work a serious injustice and if the public's interest would not be unduly damaged by the imposition of the estoppel." The court said that in order for Sarpal to successfully allege equi- table estoppel against the city, he had to prove that: (1) the city en- gaged in wrongful conduct; (2) Sarpal reasonably relied on the city's conduct; (3) Sarpal incurred a unique expenditure; and (4) a balanc- ing of the equities favored estoppel. Here, the parties had agreed as to the third element — Sarpal in- curred a unique expenditure. The court held that the other three elements were also met: (1) The city engaged in "wrongful con - duct by providing [Sarpal] with inaccurate documentation, failing to competently review the building permit application, failing to place [Sarpal] on notice of the error, and approving the Shed ap- plication ...." (2) Sarpal relied on the city's representation that the survey provided to him was the correct survey to use. This reliance was reasonable given that: Sarpal, in measuring the shed's distance from the house, did not know the house was not built as proposed; and the mistake was "not recognized by any of the experienced 8 © 2010 Thomson Reuters